The Pending Doom of Obamacare

[Guest]

JAG? This is the best argument ever for limiting government power. I am in fierce, absolute agreement with it.

The problem, though, is that many people arguing from this standpoint are concentrating on economic freedoms while ignoring civic freedoms.

Universal health care - Long term potential bad consequences: Government can decide who deserves to live and die because they control health care. That's bad. If you get unhealthy, or old, they can decide you don't deserve treatment. That's not currently an issue, but with an aging populace, I can see how that could be a natural consequence of dealing with the economic strain of a national declining health.

How many people arguing against universal health care now were arguing against the Patriot Act, which allows the government to arrest someone without evidence and imprison them without trial for an unspecified length of time.

When you give a government a power, you give that power to every iteration of government from then on. Even if you trust the current administration(Which many here don't, but as a for instance), when you pass a law you must take in to account that the future will include bad governments and people who want personal power. That's the nature of the beast. When that happens, that government won't say 'Hey - We could really abuse this power'. They will, instead, simply abuse the power.

I think there would be more support for your view if there were more internal consistency with the argument. Instead, it almost seems like a chant of 'Taxes bad' drowns out any counterarguments - A stance not everyone takes.

I love this post, FT! You are RIGHT ON, buddy!

And herein lies the importance of really thinking through each issue regardless of which party is for or against it. One has to analyze it for its worth regardless of party affiliation. It is okay to go against one's political party. Really.

[FunkyTown]

I love this post, FT! You are RIGHT ON, buddy!

And herein lies the importance of really thinking through each issue regardless of which party is for or against it. One has to analyze it for its worth regardless of party affiliation. It is okay to go against one's political party. Really.

Thank you! And I would agree wholeheartedly with anyone who took this stance and fought fiercely for decentralized power.

Heck - You could even have someone saying 'I believe in universal health care. I also believe in less centralized powers and pushing those to the States themselves.' - In that case, you could make a generic bill pushing for universal health care and let each state work out for themselves what that means - Basic health a' la medicare/medicaid or higher taxation and better public services.

That, to me, would be ideal. It would mean that individual states could give their populace exactly what the majority wants and the federal government could still act as an agent of enforcing the Constitution. Places like California and New York, which have more money and a higher degree of Statist views could get what they want while more fiercely independent states could fulfill the bare minimum expected of them, which is what many do now.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Heck - You could even have someone saying 'I believe in universal health care. I also believe in less centralized powers and pushing those to the States themselves.' - In that case, you could make a generic bill pushing for universal health care and let each state work out for themselves what that means - Basic health a' la medicare/medicaid or higher taxation and better public services.

That, to me, would be ideal. It would mean that individual states could give their populace exactly what the majority wants and the federal government could still act as an agent of enforcing the Constitution. Places like California and New York, which have more money and a higher degree of Statist views could get what they want while more fiercely independent states could fulfill the bare minimum expected of them, which is what many do now.

No need. States have virtually unlimited power to engage in these social experiments according to the separation of powers in the Constitution, a document forged to limit the power of the federal government, not the states. Massachussettes has already socialized health care, and doctors are fleeing that state like rats off a sinking ship. This is exactly the idea behind federalism, that the federal government would be limited in its powers and the states would compete for residency by their laws and tax policies. If taxes and laws became too oppressive, people would pack up and move, taking their revenues with them.

[dash77]

I have two basic comments.

The first is that the comments based on stanlism, etc. is nothing more than a distracting technique. We are talkng about if government health care is more effective and efficient and more Christ-like. I have provided real research statistic from Canada health care and the reply is Canada is Stanlism? Again, if people think Canada is a Stanlist country you are absolutely dillusional. When people make up absoutely delusional thoughts and act on them, it is sometimes refered to as mental illness!

These comments (just-a-guy thinkng Canadain health care is Stanlism) and the one below from Funky town, is equal to a person stating that smoking does not cause cancer --despite statistical evidence that it does -- and can find a single person who smokes to lives a long life to prove their point. Its delusional.

Second, the statistical evidence is that health care in Canada is a little better than the United States effective and efficient) and does not contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, which equals to about a quarter of a million deaths every 12 years or so. I have provided statistical evidence from real academic sources -- it is the truth, even if people want to simply make things up from the top of their minds to blind them to real life events. And again, I think the Savior would chose the Canada model because its about helping the down trodden, its not profit off of death and suffering.

Universal health care - Long term potential bad consequences: Government can decide who deserves to live and die because they control health care. That's bad. If you get unhealthy, or old, they can decide you don't deserve treatment. .

[Saldrin]

I have two basic comments.

The first is that the comments based on stanlism, etc. is nothing more than a distracting technique. We are talkng about if government health care is more effective and efficient and more Christ-like. I have provided real research statistic from Canada health care and the reply is Canada is Stanlism? Again, if people think Canada is a Stanlist country you are absolutely dillusional. When people make up absoutely delusional thoughts and act on them, it is sometimes refered to as mental illness!

These comments (just-a-guy thinkng Canadain health care is Stanlism) and the one below from Funky town, is equal to a person stating that smoking does not cause cancer --despite statistical evidence that it does -- and can find a single person who smokes to lives a long life to prove their point. Its delusional.

Second, the statistical evidence is that health care in Canada is a little better than the United States effective and efficient) and does not contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, which equals to about a quarter of a million deaths every 12 years or so. I have provided statistical evidence from real academic sources -- it is the truth, even if people want to simply make things up from the top of their minds to blind them to real life events. And again, I think the Savior would chose the Canada model because its about helping the down trodden, its not profit off of death and suffering.

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

what statistical evidence, quit saying its there and provide it, where do i look for myself? share a link?

i had Hodgkin's lymphoma i a got a diagnostic scan the same day the doc suspected i had it, guy in Canada had to wait 8 month from one story i read. so is the Canadian system more efficient? how come Seattle hospitals have to receive women in labor form Canada, because those hospitals cant care for the mothers and babies? you keep spouting these numbers saying we are profiting off death and suffering, when someone has to wait 8 MONTHS for a cancer screening that is suffering... and could very easily result in death.

I don't see any fact in your opinion.

Again Health care is a product, not a right so it cannot be Christ like, people are or are not Christ like.

[dash77]

Saldrin:

I assumed you had already looked at the two links I have provided. Please go back to post # 37 and post #75 and see the links.

Likewise, please go back to post #12 that I wrote, although I did not provide references, all are from academic sources-- not wikipedia and youtube clips or people simply making things up from the top of their minds or referecing a single personal experience.

With this said, I think its time for me to stop interacting on this topic. I would continue if there were credibile sources adn thinking, but arguing against someone who things that Canada is a Stanlist country or another person who uses a poorly thought our analogy about someone holding a gun to someone head or another person who thngs there are death panels in countries like Canada is so far from reality, its not worth my time to discuss.

[Guest]

Methinks dash and bert are twin brothers...

[Saldrin]

Saldrin:

I assumed you had already looked at the two links I have provided. Please go back to post # 37 and post #75 and see the links.

Likewise, please go back to post #12 that I wrote, although I did not provide references, all are from academic sources-- not wikipedia and youtube clips or people simply making things up from the top of their minds or referecing a single personal experience.

With this said, I think its time for me to stop interacting on this topic. I would continue if there were credibile sources adn thinking, but arguing against someone who things that Canada is a Stanlist country or another person who uses a poorly thought our analogy about someone holding a gun to someone head or another person who thngs there are death panels in countries like Canada is so far from reality, its not worth my time to discuss.

Post 12 is throwing numbers out with no reference or credibility post 37 is suspect as they are from Ontario they have a bias to make sure their systematic review shows what they think is good policy works, and there for is not credible or scholarly. the problem with such studies is they can always be made to show what the person doing the study wants, like a poll can be made to show what a pollster wants. post 75 is one group who is pushing for their agenda, being able to bill the government for major bucks(or profiting of the suffering and misery of others), again not credible in my eyes. Its a tyranny to make someone do something they do not want to or should not have to do like buy a product like health care. death panels do exist in counties with socialized medicine heck even Oregon has death panels and socialized medicine.State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead good thing the evil for profit drug company stepped up and saved her life from the state of Oregon. which set up its system of medicine with rationing of this kind in mind.

Now I am supposed to believe that doing the same thing will lead to a different results? cant do it that would be insanity.

What amazes me in all of this, is that the more the government planners plans fail the more they plan.

[dash77]

I have decided this is my very last post on the subject because Salrin outlines the problem. Without trying to be rude, Salrin, your last post underscores how utterly uneducated you are, and quite frankly ignorant, about the academic research process (I am not calling you uneducated and ignorant as a general disposition, just related to this topic).

The study in Open Medicine went through a double blind review which is the highest degree of rigor in research. The home of the journal, in double blind reviews, is completely irrelevant. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine is housed in the state of Massachusetts; this does not mean it has a bias toward research in this state. You probable have no idea what a double blind review even is, because if you did, you would realize how utterly foolish your comments are about the journal being housed in Ontario.

The comment that studies can always show what a person wants it to show is valid only when a person does not understand research and can’t explain the methodological flaws. Although all research has limitation, a double blind review looks at the methodological soundness and not if someone dislikes or likes the results. In your last post, in essence, you state that you know more about research than probable the 5-7 blind reviewers (who are real experts in research methodologies) and know more than the associated editor and editor of the journal. You comments are so very narcissistic.

The Institute of Medicine is one the United States most credible medical establishments. Again, I am blown away with your overall education level pertaining to this subject matter.

And then, you provide a news paper article from world net daily to support your views. Newspaper s are good to provide a very broad snapshot of life, but everyone knows that newspaper change stories to create controversy to sell them. They are not credible at all and are written at the reading and thinking level of someone in junior high school (literally, I am not just saying this).

Anyway, I am done posting on this topic due to the low level of credible thinking on this subject matter. I have laid out an evidence based argument based on real academic research. I get back you tube clips, news paper article and a person who actual thinks Canada is like the Soviet Union. Further, I have made my point clear, government run health care in Canada, versus the United States, is more effective, efficient, and I honestly believe more Christ-like. I just can’t see the Savior letting 18,000 die each year so that insurance companies can make millions off of their deaths. I see the Savior as being willing to pay more in taxes to stop death and dying. I am not suggesting that socialism is the preferred government, but in related to health care, a government run model in Canada is known as the best in the world and is better than the for-profit market model in the united States, which claims to be a Christian nation, but literally lets thousands die for the pursuit of capital.

[Just_A_Guy]

In your last post, in essence, you state that you know more about research than probable the 5-7 blind reviewers (who are real experts in research methodologies) and know more than the associated editor and editor of the journal. You comments are so very narcissistic.

Why don't you just tell Saldrin what you're really thinking:

"Shut up and let us people with PhDs do your thinking for you."

The studies' authors themselves either admitted their own study's limitations, or pretty obviously had a dog in the fight. We may not all have fancy abbreviations after our names like you do, Dash; but most people are pretty good about knowing when someone's manipulating them.

. . . I get back you tube clips, news paper article and a person who actual thinks Canada is like the Soviet Union.

That is not what you got, and I'm sorry you feel you need to stoop to such blatant misrepresentation in order to argue your position.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Jayhawk2421]

There are assumptions that are missing from the study that dash77 so frequently quotes and holds in such high regard. It assumes that all else is held constant in the world except that the current US healthcare system is replaced by a socialized one. That is simply unrealistic. If the for profit model were done away with the quality of healthcare both in the US and abroad would slip as the profit incentive to innovate was taken away. The US currently attracts top doctors and researchers under its current system. The US has the highest quality of care even if it lacks the most fair distribution of that care. The advances that are created here are spread across the globe and improve the healthcare of millions. Even if the study were correct that 18,000 die each year because of not being able to get healthcare they cannot afford to pay for, that does not mean that a socialized system would not lead to more deaths than that in the US and worldwide. Without the advances that are occuring under a privatized system, many more deaths would result.

[Saldrin]

I have decided this is my very last post on the subject because Salrin outlines the problem. Without trying to be rude, Salrin, your last post underscores how utterly uneducated you are, and quite frankly ignorant, about the academic research process (I am not calling you uneducated and ignorant as a general disposition, just related to this topic).

Your free to think that but its not true either.

[FunkyTown]

I have two basic comments.

The first is that the comments based on stanlism, etc. is nothing more than a distracting technique. We are talkng about if government health care is more effective and efficient and more Christ-like. I have provided real research statistic from Canada health care and the reply is Canada is Stanlism? Again, if people think Canada is a Stanlist country you are absolutely dillusional. When people make up absoutely delusional thoughts and act on them, it is sometimes refered to as mental illness!

I have to say it. It has to be said.... It's Stalinist. Stalin was the head the Communist Soviet Union. He killed millions of people. Stan was the head and creator of Marvel Comics. Staying 'Stanlism' once is a typo. Saying 'Stanlism' as many times as you did suggests you have no idea who Stalin was. That said, no - Canada is not Stalinist at all.

These comments (just-a-guy thinkng Canadain health care is Stanlism) and the one below from Funky town, is equal to a person stating that smoking does not cause cancer --despite statistical evidence that it does -- and can find a single person who smokes to lives a long life to prove their point. Its delusional.

I'm completely unable to follow that train of thought. What statistical evidence do you have that government controlled health care can't possibly lead to the worst case scenario? Note that I didn't say it would, but rather that viewing laws from the worst case scenario is a near necessity when viewing how laws come in to play. If you could reframe what you said, I would appreciate it - Not because I was offended, but because I honestly have no idea how that applies to what I said. Rather than give a metaphor, which I freely admit to not understanding, could you describe in plain language what you're saying?

Second, the statistical evidence is that health care in Canada is a little better than the United States effective and efficient) and does not contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, which equals to about a quarter of a million deaths every 12 years or so. I have provided statistical evidence from real academic sources -- it is the truth, even if people want to simply make things up from the top of their minds to blind them to real life events. And again, I think the Savior would chose the Canada model because its about helping the down trodden, its not profit off of death and suffering.

You provided something that I pointed out was shown to have its independence questioned in the past. As for the Saviour: He would have healed everyone who came to him, for free. Health care would be irrelevant. The Saviour had unlimited resources for the act of healing. It is not as simple as you make it out to be, let alone 'Delusional'. Nobody on the other side is saying they want people to die. If you listened a bit more, you'd see people's real concerns.

Lastly - I love universal health care. I'm a huge fan. I love it in England, I love it in Canada. That's not the point. JAG pointed out that there are real concerns with centralized bureaucratic power kept poorly in check. I don't mind higher taxes for more services and have voted for a wide variety of parties - Conservative last election, due to promises of cutbacks on services(I believe that in lean times, that's when the government should tighten its belt) and Green before that(As they were pushing a flat tax and supported several programs I fully endorse). JAG drew a line in the sand, stating that he falls firmly on the side that limits centralized governmental power. I stand firmly with him on that side, so long as the line is drawn firmly and not ignored when the government brings in laws for things we like.

If the price of permanently removing the Patriot Act and preventing it ever being created again is universal health care, there is no question that I will go buy health insurance that very day and I will work out with my family to pay for them to have health care as well, if they can't afford it.

[GeneC]

House Votes to Deny Obama Healthcare Law Funds

House Votes to Deny Obama Healthcare Law Funds

Friday, 18 Feb 2011 03:09 PM

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House voted Friday to choke off cash to fund President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law, stepping up a fight with Democrats over budget cuts and deficits.

The move against the 2010 healthcare law — one of Obama's main legislative victories — is certain to be rejected in the Democratic-led Senate, but it has escalated tensions over federal spending that could lead to a government shutdown.

On largely party lines votes, the House approved several amendments to deny funds to federal agencies to implement the healthcare overhaul, which Republicans deride as a costly government intrusion into the marketplace.

and as a side note

House Votes to Dethrone Obama?s Czars

House Votes to Dethrone Obama's Czars

Friday, 18 Feb 2011 01:37 PM

By David A. Patten

The architect of a daring GOP attempt to strip congressional funding for nine executive branch “czars” says it’s only the first salvo in a much larger battle to reverse “radical policies” promulgated by the Obama administration.

“Under President Obama, we’ve seen a proliferation of czars,” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., told Newsmax the day after the House passed his amendment to block spending any federal funds on nine czars, or “special presidential advisers.”

“These czars are implementing radical policies,” Scalise told Newsmax in the exclusive interview Friday. “They circumvented the accountability and scrutiny that goes with Senate confirmation, and that’s called for in the Constitution.”

. . . . . . .

[talisyn]

*sigh* the second coming can't get here soon enough.

[Saldrin]

FoxNews.com - Canadian Family Fights to Keep Boy's Breathing Tube in Place

[NeuroTypical]

Ok then.   With more than a decade of data, it's time to draw some conclusions.

In 2010 when ObamaCare was passed, 62% of Americans rated U.S. healthcare good or excellent.  A Gallup survey released on Friday says that's now 44%.

Remember Obama's 3 big promises?

- "If you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them"   Before Obamacare, Medicaid patients were half as likely to get an appointment with a doctor compared with privately insured patients. In 2019, they were less than one-third as likely.   ACA plan networks include on average only 40% of local physicians and 21% of those employed by hospitals.

- "People with pre-existing conditions will be protected" UHC's Medicare prior authorization denial rate was 8%, and by 2022 had risen to 22.7%  

- "Healthcare would become more affordable."  Probably the biggest lie of all.  Deductibles went from $2425 in 2014, to an average of $5,241 this year.  If it followed inflation only, it would be $3206.

"But LM" I hear you cry, "Medicare and UHC isn't Obamacare!  You're comparing apples and oranges!"  Well, can we remember ObamaCare places requirements on all plans, whether you get it from your employer or the marketplace.  Plans must cover “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them.  Insurers are banned from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors.  Obama couldn't make single-payer happen, but he was able to do the next best thing - force the collective insanity on the entire insurance industry.

So, just like we said at the time, in this thread, the young and healthy ended up subsidizing their elders, taxpayers ended up subsidizing everyone on the exchanges, and everything would suck more and be more expensive.  

And since it seems hardwired into people to blame rich folk and big corporations, things are bad enough now that they're starting to shoot CEOs. 

The ratio of this Facebook post does not bode well:

Out of approximately 40,000 reactions on the post, 35,000 used the “Haha” emote.  

Quote

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Nah, that's just some old book full of superstitions of dead cultures.  Nothing of relevance to be found there.

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok then.   With more than a decade of data, it's time to draw some conclusions.

In 2010 when ObamaCare was passed, 62% of Americans rated U.S. healthcare good or excellent.  A Gallup survey released on Friday says that's now 44%.

Remember Obama's 3 big promises?

- "If you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them"   Before Obamacare, Medicaid patients were half as likely to get an appointment with a doctor compared with privately insured patients. In 2019, they were less than one-third as likely.   ACA plan networks include on average only 40% of local physicians and 21% of those employed by hospitals.

- "People with pre-existing conditions will be protected" UHC's Medicare prior authorization denial rate was 8%, and by 2022 had risen to 22.7%  

- "Healthcare would become more affordable."  Probably the biggest lie of all.  Deductibles went from $2425 in 2014, to an average of $5,241 this year.  If it followed inflation only, it would be $3206.

"But LM" I hear you cry, "Medicare and UHC isn't Obamacare!  You're comparing apples and oranges!"  Well, can we remember ObamaCare places requirements on all plans, whether you get it from your employer or the marketplace.  Plans must cover “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them.  Insurers are banned from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors.  Obama couldn't make single-payer happen, but he was able to do the next best thing - force the collective insanity on the entire insurance industry.

So, just like we said at the time, in this thread, the young and healthy ended up subsidizing their elders, taxpayers ended up subsidizing everyone on the exchanges, and everything would suck more and be more expensive.  

And since it seems hardwired into people to blame rich folk and big corporations, things are bad enough now that they're starting to shoot CEOs. 

Serious question: what purpose does the for-profit health insurance industry serve? Because it seems to me that the main cause of increasing premiums and denials is companies trying to protect their profit margins in the face of increased government intervention. Which begs the real question: is it ethical to profit from health care? Every other first world country on the planet has nationalized health care (and yes, they have their various hiccups). Is there a reason not to burn it down here that doesn't boil down to "American Exceptionalism"? Folks seem willing to cause short term pain for potential long term prosperity when it comes to international commerce. Why not health care? Obamacare was created because too many Americans were being left behind by for profit health insurance companies. Now the for profit companies are having their profits threatened by government subsidation. Their "solutions" include higher denial rates (perpetuated by a shady AI program in the case of UHC), higher premiums, and putting time limits on coverage for anesthesia.

So no, you're not going to convince me that rising costs of private health care is the fault of Obamacare. That's exactly what the Brian Thompsons of the world want you to think. A lot of us are ready to move on from them, and they were never going to go quietly. 

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

The ratio of this Facebook post does not bode well:

Out of approximately 40,000 reactions on the post, 35,000 used the “Haha” emote.  

It got a lot worse than that.

They ended up turning off visibility of reactions somewhere around 71k 😆.

Murder is wrong, always. That's all I have to say about Brian Thompson.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

27 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Which begs the real question: is it ethical to profit from health care?

Oo - another big difference between left and right thought!  We have different understandings of how humans be human.

From my perspective, any human has the right to seek to profit from their labor.  That includes folks in the medical profession, as well as folks in accounting and managerial and executive professions.   If mechanics and pizza slingers get to gain wealth by working, but doctors and managers and CEOs can't, then nobody will want to be a doctor or a manager or a CEO.

(Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will change the subject or shift the goalposts to talk about corporate excess or outrageous CEO pay or something.  Just once, it would be nice to find one who could stick to the subject of whether it's ethical to profit from healthcare.)

 

Also from my perspective, there is no "right" to healthcare.  Put another way, nobody has the right to the labor of another.  We have a name for that.  It's called slavery.

(Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will not address this point.  Instead, they'll talk about what moral and just societies should do.  Just once, it would be nice to find one who can talk about what a right is, and whether or not one human has a right to the product of somebody else.)

 

Finally, from my perspective, people being able to do what they want with the product of their labor, or their surplus earnings, is largely a right.  There are exceptions.  But being able to purchase stock in a small business, or a for-profit school, but not a hospital, would cause more problems than it solves.  This last point is the most easily argued-against, the most difficult to defend.  As you have to be pretty blind to fail to see excesses and disparities in harmful, I'd even say destructive or evil amounts.  

 

[Phoenix_person]

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oo - another big difference between left and right thought!  We have different understandings of how humans be human.

From my perspective, any human has the right to seek to profit from their labor.  That includes folks in the medical profession, as well as folks in accounting and managerial and executive professions.   If mechanics and pizza slingers get to gain wealth by working, but doctors and managers and CEOs can't, then nobody will want to be a doctor or a manager or a CEO.

(Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will change the subject or shift the goalposts to talk about corporate excess or outrageous CEO pay or something.  Just once, it would be nice to find one who could stick to the subject of whether it's ethical to profit from healthcare.)

I don't think there's widespread thought on the left that doctors shouldn't be very well-compensated for their labor. The category of leftists who thinks that doctors should be paid the same as line cooks is fringe at best. And labor cost =/= profit. I'm asking why shareholders are influencing medical decisions.

But I'm talking about the insurance industry, specifically. I'm not talking about the doctors and hospitals, though there are certainly conversations that can be had about those as well. Why do we need a for-profit insurance industry? Yes, people should be able to profit from their labor, but how valuable to society is the labor of a health insurance broker? That's a great question to ask our capitalist allies with nationalized health care, literally ALL of which have nationalized health care.

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Also from my perspective, there is no "right" to healthcare.  Put another way, nobody has the right to the labor of another.  We have a name for that.  It's called slavery.

(Almost unfailingly, whenever presented with this notion, a left-leaning person will not address this point.  Instead, they'll talk about what moral and just societies should do.  Just once, it would be nice to find one who can talk about what a right is, and whether or not one human has a right to the product of somebody else.)

If that were true, there wouldn't be a Hippocratic Oath. Health care labor is unique in that regard.

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

As you have to be pretty blind to fail to see excesses and disparities in harmful, I'd even say destructive or evil amounts.  

Indeed. And the health care industry is literally a life-and-death business. I think it's easy to make an argument that it's the one industry that shouldn't be accountable to shareholders. That doesn't mean my burn surgeon can't drive a Mercedes. But maybe he doesn't need a yacht. Do *I* think he deserves a yacht for rebuilding my legs with skin from my back? Heck yeah. He deserves a spaceship if he wants one. But I didn't pay him to do all that, you did.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Obamacare was created because too many Americans were being left behind by for profit health insurance companies.

And now it's succeeded in leaving even more people behind.  The idea of helping those who cannot afford health insurance might have been good (were it not for the fact that health insurance itself is all wrong - see below), but the solution wasn't to help the "left behind", rather, it was to harm everyone.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

So no, you're not going to convince me that rising costs of private health care is the fault of Obamacare.

Where I worked, health insurance costs had actually gone down because the employees were doing such a good job of taking care of themselves and being wise with their healthcare and insurance.  (The company was an independent microbiology lab full of scientists, so, you know, they understood a bit more than the average joe.)  The year before Obamacare was to go live, our premiums went up.  The insurance rep flat-out said, not even trying to be subtle, that the prices were going up because the industry had no idea what Obamacare would do to the healthcare and health insurance landscape and all the companies were raising rates essentially to cover themselves against future uncertainty.

So, it may not convince you, but there it is, straight out of the horse's mouth, Obamacare was the cause of our first rising cost and every year thereafter, our rates rose again.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

what purpose does the for-profit health insurance industry serve?

Why to make money for the health insurance industry through bureaucracy, fear, and confusion - in other words, by taking from the system without adding a single thing of value.

My car insurance doesn't cover gas, oil changes, tire rotation or replacement, filter replacement, or other routine, expected maintenance.  It covers the unexpected.  My homeowner's insurance doesn't cover furnace filters or the cost of a new roof replaced due to age or the appliances getting old and needing to be replaced.  It covers the unexpected.  (I don't know about my homeowner's insurance, as I've never needed to make a claim, but my car insurance simplifies the unexpected rather than making it so that one would have to literally have a college degree in insurance "coding" to understand matters.  And then there's "health insurance"...)

And yet for some bizarre reason, we expect health insurance to cover basic maintenance rather than only the unexpected, and all participants in the industry have joined right in to jack prices (because prices are obscured and jacked by the insurance industry, so no one knows them anyway) and make healthcare of all types unaffordable to anyone without insurance?  Why?  Well so people will get health insurance, of course!  It is in their best interest for neither the doctor nor the patient to know how much things cost.  It is in their best interest for patients not to shop around for the best deal, but rather for an "in-network" doctor.

Throw in the absurdly large awards for medical-related lawsuits, which also serve to require doctors to get malpractice... wait for it... insurance - and that is why healthcare costs are rising - no competition, a middle-man (insurance) obfuscating and raising the price of every medical procedure, people too confused to question what's happening, and lawyers and insurance companies making a profit off every mistake.

Healthcare insurance in this country is a legal racket just as much as car dealerships are a legal racket.  We need them because they exist, not the other way around.

But at this point, everyone and everything is so far gone that I don't know that there's any fixing it short of the Second Coming when, I think (but could be wrong), we will all be made terrestrial beings and doctors and insurance men will be out of business.

 

[NeuroTypical]

16 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why do we need a for-profit insurance industry?

We won't see eye to eye on it.   My answer is that if anything is worth doing, it's worth doing for profit.

That said, I'll agree there are endless things wrong with the health insurance industry.  My list will not be the same thing as your list though.  I'm thinking things would be largely fixed if the govt got out of it totally.  If companies could charge more for people in high-risk categories.  AKA charge less for people in low-risk categories.  I've said it before - you get what you pay for.  The more healthcare you give people, the more healthcare they'll earn.  Make people pay for their own stuff, and they'll use less of it.  Because they'll prioritize health.

I'm fine with safety nets.  I'm not fine with using what should be a safety net, as yet another government program to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.

23 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

If that were true, there wouldn't be a Hippocratic Oath. Health care labor is unique in that regard.

I don't understand what you're saying.  The HO is an oath to abide by a set of ethical guidelines, right?  To get my bean counting job, I had to agree to my company's standards of business conduct.  Law enforcement takes an oath.  Elected folks take one.  Could you clarify?

 

[Phoenix_person]

 

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm fine with safety nets.  I'm not fine with using what should be a safety net, as yet another government program to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.

You're right, we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this. Forbes' list of billionaires includes 34 in the healthcare field worth a total of around $120, mostly in the pharmaceutical and medical supply sectors, specifically. The top 5 health care billionaires on the list are worth a combined $60B. There's a saying in my circles "There are no ethical billionaires". Do you agree? And before you answer, consider the amount of money that ONE billion dollars is. Think about how life-changing a TENTH of that would be to someone like you or me. I know you're very anti tax in general, including the ultra-wealthy. I'm putting you to task to tell me why every cent above $999M shouldn't be either taxed or donated to charity. Not just for healthcare billionaires, but for all of them. The limit we're willing to accept in human suffering is directly correlated with the limit of how wealthy we allow our wealthiest citizens to become. A billionaire tax like the one outlined above could do a lot of good in our society. It boils down to one simple belief: billionaires shouldn't exist alongside widespread poverty. You can still live a life of obscene excess on $999M. Why are we so adamant about the inherent right for people to be billionaires when poverty exists? You seem to have a very strong belief that profit = good most of the time. We're actually in agreement there, believe it or not. I absolutely believe that every person has a right to build wealth for themselves. I also believe that there is no ethical reason to allow wealth accumulation beyond a certain (very) extreme point. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.

And if individual wealth-building is important to you, I urge you to look up how many FULL-TIME Wal Mart and Amazon employees are currently on food stamps. Then look up the net worth of Jeff Bezos and the Waltons. Tell me with a straight face that that's an ethical way to run a company. You hate taxes and love wealth. Your taxes are literally subsidizing the business practices of companies who refuse to pay a living wage (which is $20/hr minimum in all states, $25+ in most), denying opportunities for building wealth to the people who built theirs. Are you okay with that?

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't understand what you're saying.  The HO is an oath to abide by a set of ethical guidelines, right?  To get my bean counting job, I had to agree to my company's standards of business conduct.  Law enforcement takes an oath.  Elected folks take one.  Could you clarify?

You said that "nobody has the right to the labor of another". I'm guessing your bean-counting job doesn't have lives on the line. A lot of LO and military folks' jobs do. I took an oath at age 17, and I take it just as seriously now as I did when I was in. It was always so much more to me than an "ethical guideline", it was a blueprint for public service. Some professions are more about service than building wealth. Yes, a lot of doctors in particular sign up for both, and there's plenty of wiggle room for that. But their oath is about saving lives. I'd wager that most good doctors probably don't view the HO so much as a set of ethical guidelines as they do a moral imperative.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

There's a saying in my circles "There are no ethical billionaires". Do you agree?

Here's where we agree: Capitalism, when paired with a representative government of some form, inherently creates an elite class with concentrated power and wealth and control.

Here's where we don't agree, but only because you haven't thought things through enough: You know what else inherently creates an elite class with concentrated power/wealth/control?  Literally every single other great structure human beings have ever attempted, across all of recorded history, with zero exceptions (unless you're willing to take the biblical story of Enoch as fact).  

I'm in favor of the capitalism/representative pairing, because it's the least worst.   The more you look outside of your anticapitalist narrative and avail yourself of the history of the world's great socialist experiments, the more you must come to realize I'm right.  The Politbureau's dachas and nepotism.  China's ornately decorated gold plated seats of government power.  Venezuela's Miraflores Palace.  The cushiony perks of nazi party membership which continued until the end of WWII.  Google up which nations are brutal murderous dictatorships, then google up how their ruling class lives compared to their people.  Everywhere.  All the time.   Heck, even at it's most poverty-stricken and tribal, humans have chiefs with greater access to the best food and women, the finest clothing.  It's a human thing.

It doesn't matter how noble the origins, how pure the intentions, how selfless the organizers, it's what you get.  From what I can tell, you sir, are one of the most Christlike individuals with the most pure love of your fellow man that I've ever met online.  I have zero doubt you want to ease the suffering of those who suffer.  I have zero doubt that you busy yourself with such activities and search deeply for the right solutions.  So maybe pay a little heed to a little warning: The greatest and most murderous evil governments all started out with plenty of people like you.  Cambodia's killing fields, Russia's purges and gulags and starved Ukrainians, China's various atrocities, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, and endless other examples.

You're very big on the USA's dirty fingers in everyone's pie.   Feel free to compare death tolls and the overall impact on personal freedom to get a sense of what I mean.  Capitalism is better, especially when paired with a meritocracy that allows people to move up and down the social scale.  And the more you give poor people money and services and stuff, the less incentive they have to go get the things for themselves.  You get what you pay for.

Anyway, I'm glad you're here.  You help keep me honest and humble, whenever I get too proud of capitalism.  But you'll have to show me where my larger perspective is incorrect if you want to have a bigger impact. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The Politbureau's dachas and nepotism.  China's ornately decorated gold plated seats of government power.  Venezuela's Miraflores Palace.  The cushiony perks of nazi party membership which continued until the end of WWII.  Google up which nations are brutal murderous dictatorships, then google up how their ruling class lives compared to their people. 

...

Cambodia's killing fields, Russia's purges and gulags and starved Ukrainians, China's various atrocities, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, and endless other examples.

I'm reminded of Peron's Argentina after the Junta.  Good intentions/soft hearts = Bankrupt nation.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Carborendum